Serpent God Statue

Matthew Downie's page

7,231 posts (7,250 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

traber333 wrote:
736 points of damage in a single round of combat

So, it sounds like we should roughly halve that to get average damage dice rather than maximum damage dice. 368 damage. I'll round that up to 400.

Oh, and since we shouldn't assume they're all crits, we'll halve that again. 200 damage.

Oh, and since one hit per round is a more likely average than four hits per round, we'll quarter that. 50 damage. Assuming no fire or acid resistance.

So overpowered...


Quixote wrote:
As for the OP, why isn't precise shot on the table? What are you looking for and why?

OP is looking for a feat that causes you to sometimes accidentally hit allies when shooting into melee. I don't know the "why" but Precise Shot doesn't do that.

Valandil Ancalime wrote:
https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Friendly%20Fire

Linkified since this looks like a valid answer.


Expeditious Retreat says:

Quote:
This spell increases your base land speed by 30 feet. This adjustment is treated as an enhancement bonus.

So I think we're supposed to treat an enhancement bonus to land speed as increasing your 'base land speed' for the purposes of jumping.


"Natural 20 is a critical hit" is the general rule and "if you roll a natural 20 and still get a result lower than the DC you succeed instead of critically succeed or fail" is the specific rule that overrides it.

Some people thought that, "Natural 20 is a critical hit" was intended as a specific rule for attacks, but this was just a (re?)statement of the general rule. Paizo apparently believes that the RAI is clear enough and no errata is needed.


gnoams wrote:
I thought about using troops, but I hate their auto-hit swarm style damage.

You could use my custom alternative troops. They require some prep work and improvisation, but it's way simpler than tracking dozens of individual enemies. And the PCs don't have to suddenly use radically different tactics ("I guess we'll send in the Rogue as the tank because my +5 plate mail is somehow useless here") just to fight a bunch of orcs.

(1) Multiply the HP of the individual by the number in the troop, up to a maximum of 25x.

(2) The troop size on the map shrinks based on the HP remaining.
17x to 25x = 5 by 5.
10x to 16x = 4 by 4.
5x to 9x = 3 by 3.
2x to 4x = 2 by 2.
Anything less than that and it's just an individual soldier.
Pre-calculate these HP target values when making your troop.
Two troops can merge, combining their HP and giving them a new size.

(3) When attacking, a troop gets stronger attacks based on their size, compared to the attacks of an individual:
5 by 5: +4 to hit, double the number of attacks, double damage for each attack that hits
4 by 4: +2 to hit, double the number of attacks, double damage for each attack that hits
3 by 3: double the number of attacks, double damage for each attack that hits
2 by 2: +2 to hit, double the number of attacks
1 by 1: Attacks as normal.
(You can simplify creatures that already have complicated multiple-attack routines...)

(4) A troop gets 5e-style 'disadvantage' (roll two d20, take the lowest) on initiative, since they move at the speed of their slowest members.

(5) Deal with spells as though the enemies were individuals, using GM discretion.
Example: The troop is hit by a Fireball. Calculate the reflex save needed. Let's say it works out that they need a 12 on a d20 to pass the save. Roll as many d20s as there were individuals in the area.
Let's say the fireball does 24 damage and the individuals had 20HP. For each one who failed, the troop takes 12 damage. For each one who passed, the troop takes 20 damage (it is capped at the HP of the individual).
Example: someone casts Glitterdust on the troop. Only four of the troop are in the area to be affected. Roll four saves, working out in advance what they need to roll. Split off the ones who are blinded into a new troop with blinded status. Or apply an appropriate AC/attack penalty (eg have the troop as a whole attack as though they were a bit smaller, knock off 1 AC, and let the Rogue use Sneak damage against them).


VoodistMonk wrote:

I still don't understand how people are getting away with that.

With a 30' land speed... if you take a standard action, then move 25' into a jump, you still finish your jump on your turn. So you got a 25' running start to jump 5'... good job.

Only if you're applying a rule that you cannot move further than your normal maximum movement when you jump. Isn't that basically the rule you were saying wasn't needed?

VoodistMonk wrote:
You do NOT start your jump on this turn, pause mid-air, wait for your next turn, and get to...

Eh, no rule against that as far as I know. If a GM decides to allow splitting a jump over multiple turns then it would work like this:

At the end of one turn (with 30 base speed) you move 25 feet and start a jump of 10 feet. Your turn ends with you in the middle of your jump. You'd have to start your next turn by taking a Move action. This would involve completing the second half of your jump using up 5 feet of your movement limit (you already made your Acrobatics check on the previous round so wouldn't have to roll), and then you'd have another 25 feet to play around with to complete your Move action.

The only real problem with this interpretation is that it draws attention to the weirdness of turn-based gameplay where everyone freezes in place waiting for their go.


VoodistMonk wrote:
They have to dedicate quite a bit to consistently exceed their land speed with a jump...

Ah, but you could take your Standard action, then get a 25-foot run up during your Move action, and then jump at the end of your Move action to exceed your normal movement even with mediocre Acrobatics skill...


VoodistMonk wrote:
How are people dividing up the jump? I literally don't understand what people are talking about or alluding to.

People are doing it differently from one another because the rules aren't very clear, and because jumps of more than ten feet aren't used very often so it's rarely discussed.

I certainly wouldn't restrict a jump to a single move action. (After all, you can jump during a Run or Charge action...)

I'm pretty sure the sole purpose of the "No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round" rule is that you shouldn't be able to move faster than normal just because you're jumping. If you could do that, PCs might start jumping everywhere to save time.


VoodistMonk wrote:
Does the "running" in running jump, mean the same thing as running at 4x your land speed?

In my opinion, no. It means you move forwards ten feet as part of your move action, and then you jump twenty feet (or whatever) as the rest of your move action.

Quote:
These DCs double if you do not have at least 10 feet of space to get a running start.

It doesn't say anything about using a Run action, just that you need some space. But some GMs will disagree.

Forum debate ten years ago

Oh, and I forgot this rule earlier:

Quote:
Faster Base Movement: Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet. Creatures with a base land speed below 30 feet receive a –4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed below 30 feet. No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.

So, if a monk's "enhancement bonus to his land speed" counts as "base land speed" (which it probably does) then that increases jumping distance too.


VoodistMonk wrote:
Wait, a Monk's Fast Movement does, or does not, affect how far they can jump?

If the GM is running by the 'you can't split a jump over multiple combat rounds' interpretation, then your movement speed provides a hard limit to the length of your jump. Since a high level monk can jump about 90 feet (based on Acrobatics bonuses), if you took away his Fast Movement he wouldn't be able to jump that far except during a Run action. So, kinda?


As far as I can tell, there is no such rule.

A literal reading is that the enemy rolls four dice and takes the lowest, because Protective Luck means the attacker rolls twice, and Misfortune means that each of those two dice must also be rolled twice...

There is an unofficial James Jacobs ruling saying the effects probably shouldn't stack.

Link


Derklord wrote:
Apart from some specific feats, in order to make one attack per round, a creature must use the full-attack action.

I think you mean "in order to make more than one attack per round"?


Cleanse, despite being only one level lower than Heal, is far worse. It heals a fraction of the amount of damage, and the most significant conditions it's capable of removing would prevent you from casting Cleanse in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, if the party was level 13, you could make them fight a Cloud Giant (CR11) instead of a CR13+ giant. I think GeneticDrift is just saying, "Don't make them fight two Cloud Giants at once to bring it up to a CR13 encounter, or your players will get upset again."


The rules for 5-foot step say:

Quote:
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness.

The rules for the entangled condition say:

Quote:
Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity.

A literal reading of the rules would suggest she could make the step, because her movement is hampered by something other than difficult terrain or darkness.

I suspect the intent of the rule is that anything that hampers your movement prevents 5-foot steps, but that's up to the GM.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The situation I hate is:

Human Rogue: "This is a job for a stealth expert. I'll go and scout ahead."

Dwarf Cleric: "Hang on. We're in a cave system which is completely dark (apart from our light cantrips) because all the monsters have darkvision. If you scout ahead without a light you'll be blind. If you scout ahead with a light, all the monsters will know there's an intruder as soon as they notice the mysterious glow coming round the corner. They'll spot you long before you see any of them."

Human Rogue: "Fine. I guess you can scout ahead in your noisy armor while I continue not to use my skills."


HumbleGamer wrote:
Feel free to provide a fix which won't let all of this balance ( what i pointed out before ) disappear, because the only thing i can think of is a personal progression for the shield to make it broken after any average hit from a monster of the same level.

I'm not sure the balance exists in the first place, since Wizards can go around blocking with Sturdy Shields already.

But let's assume shield blocking is too good if they don't break, and that we're making up new rules. How about:

Rule 1: Shields have double or triple HP or whatever.
Rule 2: To make a successful Shield Block, you have to make an attack roll with your shield equal or higher than the attack roll of the attack you're trying to block.

This means (a) shields do not break all the time, (b) someone can safely use a non-sturdy shield to block with, (c) shield blocking as a strategy is not overpowered as it uses an action and is not guaranteed to work.

Or:
Shields cannot be destroyed while blocking with them, only rendered unusable until after the battle.

Or:
A feat that causes all shields you use to take much less damage. This makes it too high an opportunity cost for a non-shield-focused character.


I invented that for the sake of the narrative. The wizard is the one who would be most annoyed at being forbidden to cast spells, since he doesn't have a lot of other abilities to fall back on.


Aratorin wrote:
If you can find a Shield on the list of Weapons, please point it out.

It's on this page, listed as Shield Bash.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're going the 'realism' route, things like arrows should not break shields.

Except maybe magic arrows breaking non-magic shields.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
At the end of the day when you make the decision to Block you ALSO get to know immediately if choosing to do so will break your Shield so if that hit won't kill you or put you in mortal danger but would break your Shield then I think the intent here is PROBABLY that you need to make a difficult choice, risk v reward and all that.

Having to make that decision harms immersion. Can you imagine a warrior in real life deciding to take a blow with his body rather than risking his shield?

(I guess we have to think in terms of 'using up your reserves of stamina / heroic luck when you try to dodge' to make any sense of it...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules are in Bestiary 2. They were accidentally omitted from the first one.

Quote:

Negative Healing

A creature with negative healing draws
health from negative energy rather than positive energy.
It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by
positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage,
and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muse. wrote:

In Pathfinder, it seems to me that magic is about as common as Electronics are in the real world... "At Will" use of zero level spells and so many "people" have spell casting levels.

So, when a group of adventurers walk down the street, what to the townsfolk notice?

PC 1: A Tiefling rogue dressed in eastern armor (a style mainly found half a world away on a different continent) with light weapons.

PC 2: A Gnome Druid, in armor of hides, riding a Tiger.

PC 3: A human Wizard, in robes - with an Ioun stone circling his head.

PC 4: A Dwarven Fighter, in shiny full plate with a glave in hand and a loaded crossbow on his back.

PC 5: A Half-Elven Bard, in flashy clothing and carrying a lute.

NOW... one of these persons stops in the middle of the street, raises his right hand, waves it around and says something in an unknown language...

Guard: "I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the station for questioning."

Wizard: "Why are you picking on me? Why not him?"
Guard: "No law against being a tiefling, or wearing fancy armor."
Wizard: "Or him? He's got a loaded crossbow!"
Guard: "And the minute he starts firing it off in a public space, we'll take him in too."
Wizard: "Or the gnome with the tiger?"
Guard: "Anyone who can persuade a tiger to let him ride on its back is probably able to stop it eating people too."
Wizard: "It was a harmless spell!"
Guard: "Possibly, possibly. If you need to do your magic in town for some reason, you can do it in front of our local cleric. He's a spellcraft expert and will be able to identify whether you're casting a healing spell or a mind control spell. Or you can apply for a spellcasting licence, but those are hard to get unless you're already a respected citizen..."
Wizard: "But I'm a Wizard! It's my job! Would you arrest a Fighter for fighting people? Arrest a Thief for stealing stuff? Arrest an Assassin for murdering people?"
Guard: "Oh, and we'll be taking the Bard in too. We don't like luters around here."


"Does anyone else want to take over as GM?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if you want to be able to use your shield to mitigate damage but you would also like some other cool thing out of your shield?

This is what most shield users want, but have no way of getting. That feels like a problem.


How is this not a problem with any Vigilante, not just an all-Vigilante group? Any time they're in their social identity, if they haven't entrusted the group with it, they're forcing the group to split up.

The players will figure something out. They were presumably the ones who wanted an all-Vigilante party in the first place, if we're assuming a not-overly-controlling GM. Some options:

(1) "Let's all split up and go to the mayor's party in our civilian guises. If any trouble breaks out, we'll make excuses and mask up." The PCs are all there, they're just role-playing not knowing one another.

(2) "I have a friend, wealthy playboy Bruce Whine, who should be able to help you there. You can trust him just as much as you'd trust me. He knows a way to contact me in an emergency. Oh, and to keep our friendship secret, I don't allow myself to be seen in the same room as him."

(3) "Even though we've only just met, after that one battle where we saved the town, I've decided to immediately trust you all with my secret identity. I'm Tony Stork, also known as Cold Iron Man."


I'd imagine a backstory they met while fighting villains in their vigilante guises, and teamed up. Later they came to trust one another enough to share their secret identities. This is pretty much what happened in the Justice League and Avengers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The wording suggests you'd get +4 to AC and +2 to Reflex saves and Stealth checks.


SheepishEidolon wrote:

Voted for "Keep it the way it is in the Core Rulebook".

A fighter is in a party of ~4 player characters. It's totally fine if he covers only a fraction of the noncombat capabilities. I am opposed to the idea that everyone plays a Swiss Army knife. Leave the skilled people (bards, rogues etc.) some space. Trust them to do their job.

If you still want to combine a fighter's combat prowess AND skills / magic, you can have that, thanks to the options of 10 years of Pathfinder. It's not baked into the class, so you will have to spend character options on it. Powers should come at a price - classes like cleric and wizard are the real offenders here, with their broad and free / cheap access to new spells.

With the Core Rulebook, every other class is more useful than Fighters out of combat. Almost all of them are more useful in combat too.

I'm fine with the Fighter being simple, but let's say we gave them the same number of skill points as Rangers. (Rangers will still be better at magic, animal companions, wilderness survival, etc, so this doesn't seem unbalanced to me.)

We give the Fighter class skills in areas like stealth, perception, leadership, athletics, crafting/engineering, riding, knowledge about certain types of enemies, and first aid. (But not: arcane knowledge, lockpicking, sleight of hand, bluffing or performance.)

This version of the Fighter no longer seems like he'd be a bad choice to work as a bodyguard or soldier. He can spot ambushes! He can fend for himself!

Bards would still own their space. They get buffing and bluffing and spellcasting and lore abilities.

It would make having a Core Rogue less useful (even though this Fighter is no good at handling complicated traps) but I'm assuming the Rogue will get some fixes too. Or just use the Unchained one.


Phantasmist wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.

Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.

Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?

The options were:

Fighters need to form weapons out of their minds (my thought: that would be a perfectly good archetype but should not be a defining feature)
Theme that gives it various class options (i.e. sorcerers bloodlines, wizards schools) (my thought: a nice idea, but would require us to come up with lots of other ideas to fill out the options)
Fighters need something else (answered in the comments below)
Keep it the way it is in the Core Rulebook
Fighters need area effect abilities (my thought: I think that should be an option for martials but it doesn't fix the narrative disparity issue)
Fighters need more to do outside of combat (my thought: yes, but what?)
Add a point system (i.e. monk ki points or magus's pool) (my thought: Fighters should be simple. They're the traditional choice for players who want a character with very few rules.)
Fighters need to be effective no matter what weapon they have (or even no weapon at all) (my thought: A somewhat good idea. Maybe the 'specialist in one weapon group' core fighter should be an archetype.)

Personally, I would like Fighters to have lots of skill points so they can do stuff outside of combat. I'd like there to be less of an incentive to dump Charisma (Charisma saving throws?) so they're not automatically bad at talking. I'd like spells to be less good at making skills obsolete. And I'd like martials in general not to be reliant on 'stand still and full attack'. D&D 5e has 'make your attacks at any point in your movement' and that seems to work fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:
It's even more absurd to keep claiming 'I need rules for that', adding more and more crunch and cruft to an already 600pp rulebook, creating more and more overhead and serving only an increasingly diminishing group of rules lawyers whilst alienating everyone else.

Wanting consistent rules for breaking open locked wooden doors with fireballs and similar spells isn't a particularly unreasonable desire. It sounds more useful than, say, rules for crafting planks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SlightlyCrazy wrote:
letting players cast produce flame at a barrel of oil or at a campfire is clearly intended to work within the rules.

I don't know what was intended, but if it already worked within the rules, they wouldn't have had to put a special section in the GMG recommending allowing it...


That would be like having four people riding an elephant and each one moving it on their turn.

The carpet is activated by the command word. It can then move at 40 foot speed on its own turn. What it does on its turn is based on what instructions is has been given by the one who activated it. For simplicity we would normally have it act during the turn of the commanding character, but the carpet does not get to move multiple times in a round just because someone else took command.


I'd actually quite like a backwards-compatible Pathfinder where high-level PCs have a few more hit points, a bit less damage output, and some restrictions on what spells do, to make it harder to teleport past the adventure or defeat the enemy boss in one round.

And fewer feat-taxes.

And more skill points for Fighters.


My DR preferences:
(1) Keep DR/Silver for things like werewolves. That's too iconic to throw away.
(2) Simplify. Remove 'Cold Iron' as a concept. If a creature is vulnerable to iron, a regular sword will work.
(3) There shouldn't be too many creatures with DR that is really hard to overcome. 'DR/Magic Or Silver' for devils. 'DR/Adamantine Or Bludgeoning' for a Stone Golem. If a PC wants to rely on a single weapon, that should occasionally cause problems, but not so often everyone feels forced to carry three different magic weapons around.
(4) Make DR be 'half damage' instead of subtracting a fixed number. That way it's an equal problem for all martials. In PF1 a two-handed-weapon fighter could just ignore DR by out-damaging it, while a two-weapon fighter could be rendered useless.

On the other hand, this isn't something so broken that it needs fixing if we wanted to make a backwards-compatible game.


You could have the Cold Rider be in league with an undead creator/controller, who has ordered the mount to obey him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To recap the original argument in a more neutral manner:

The OP wanted 'regeneration'.

There are different things referred to as regeneration within the game rules. There is Universal Monster Rules Regeneration where you cannot die while the ability is active, and there is the inferior sort, as described in the Ring of Regeneration rules.

(It is possible that a GM might decide to keep things simple by making all types of regeneration work the same but this is not generally considered Rules As Written.)

When someone says

Quote:
White spindle ioun stone isn't actual regeneration and is more like fast healing

they're trying to say that the hit-point regeneration this item gives you isn't Universal Monster Rules Regeneration (which many consider to be the One True Regeneration, the only one really worth mentioning) and is basically just Fast Healing + Limb Regrowth. And unless you're using custom critical hit rules, or your characters are getting captured and mutilated, limb regrowth will never ever be useful, so that's basically just Fast Healing.


gnoams wrote:
Do you think detect magic allows you to see a person who is hiding, but wearing a magical ring?

It wouldn't allow you to see the person, but you'd probably detect there was a magical aura in the area, unless they were hiding behind a sheet of lead or equivalent. (See Detect Magic versus Invisibility...)


Since there's nothing in the rules to cause monsters to lose limbs and organs, allowing fast-healing to grow them back as long as they're still alive would make little difference.


I feel like putting a lead sheet over the trap's trigger ought to block the trigger from working. It would be like trying to conceal a security camera by encasing it in a metal box.


Demonknight wrote:
Items can be damaged by attacks

By attacks, such as casting Acid Splash, which can target objects, but not by using a Strike, which can only target creatures.

Unless the GM applies common sense to fix this issue.


Squiggit wrote:
The spell says you can use it to raise or lower the level of water by 10 feet and graystone's interpretation is... raising or lowering the level of water by 10 feet. What additional, hidden functionality do you think exists there?

Possible other interpretations of raising water level:

(1) It only raises it within an enclosed space that can hold water. You could use it to fill a bucket (or swimming pool), but the water couldn't rise beyond the rim of the bucket.
(2) It creates magic water that is resistant by normal physics - you can cast it on a lake, and now there is a big cube of water sticking up vertically with flat vertical edges. Or, if you lower the water level, there is a big cubic hole in the lake. Since the spell has no duration, this is effectively permanent. This would have big implications for any boats in the area.

Do either of these work better for gameplay?


Claxon wrote:
I believe in PF1 it was treated as being a non-metal armor. I see no reason to change that now.

It was unclear in PF1 too.


graystone wrote:
You get a column of water that comes out of your mug 10' to the ceiling which then falls...

Presumably this splashes all over the floor, creating an enormous puddle. You could then cast the same spell again; since you now have a much larger surface area to raise, it instantly fills the room with many thousands of gallons of water.


Chell Raighn wrote:
The very last line very well does imply that miss chance would apply first... the fact that if you are invisible, so is your mirror image... very much does imply that any effects on you granting a miss chance due to visibility would similarly apply to the image...

The mirror image copies you and your Blur effect, but the blurry bits of the mirror image are exactly as real as the rest of the mirror image, so if the mirror-blur gets struck it still destroys the image.

This interpretation makes as much sense as anything else about Mirror Image, an illusion spell that can somehow stop an arrow hitting a giant in a narrow corridor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seeking novelty ties in pretty well with the way players interact with the game world.
Gnome adventurer: "Isn't this fascinating? I've never waded through leech-infested sewer water before."
Human adventurer: "This is horrible."
Gnome adventurer: "You're not having fun? And yet you chose a profession that requires you to do this sort of thing all the time? Humans are weird."

Ravingdork wrote:

Other weird examples of (typical?) gnomes in the book include a woman who chases a copper coin and would do almost anything to get it back, and a knight who wears a tea kettle for a helmet and constantly narrates his own exploits in the third person as they occur.

What other weird things might a gnome character do?

I'd choose a weird obsession that happens to tie in with the campaign goals. For example, if I've caught a glimpse of the boss villain, I might become fascinated with his hat. "Who made that hat? Do you think he'd let me try it on?" This means I'm still trying to track down the bad guy, just for a slightly different reason to everyone else.


Quixote wrote:
The idea that a pack of wolves or a roc or a dinosaur would fight to the death (or even fight in the most efficient, aggressive way) is absurd.

A pack of wolves that would attack armed humans in the first place isn't realistic.

In my experience, sensible enemies with a strong sense of self-preservation make for unsatisfying fights. After a round or two they realise they're a routine CR-appropriate challenge and surrender or flee. Then the PCs have to kill enemies who aren't fighting back, or let them go.


I don't know how much of an issue it would be in real play, but to keep the balance identical you'd have to make reroll abilities work in the same situations they do now. So something that allowed you to reroll a failed save would become something that forced the caster to reroll a successful spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another way to run it is to have the players always be the ones who roll. PC casting Daze on an enemy? Player rolls d20 and has to beat a static save value. Enemy casting Daze on PC? Player rolls a save as normal.

It's a fairly easy house-rule to run and has minimal effects on gameplay balance.


Franz Lunzer wrote:

Also consider Area of Effect spells: Suddenly one roll determines if all those in the area of a fireball take no, half, full or double damage.

Less dice rolled = more extreme results.

You could roll a separate attack against each creature in the area.

1 to 50 of 7,231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>